At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

Interesting, I've never heard that before. So, would not performing any sexual acts be going against the natural order of morality, and be a sin itself?

Stooge the Worst

#UnbanTheMadman

#StandWithBossy

#BetOnThett

"bossy r u like 85 years old and have lost ur mind"
~mysteriouscrystals

"I've honestly never seen seventh post anything that wasn't completely idiotic in a trying-to-be-funny way."
~F-16

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

Interesting, I've never heard that before. So, would not performing any sexual acts be going against the natural order of morality, and be a sin itself?

This is the belief among the Catholic Church. It is often very misunderstood.

No, abstinence does not go against the natural order. After all, acting upon human sexuality is not inherent. It would not be fair if a man was sinning because no woman would want to enter into a relationship with him, for that would not be by his own spiritual fault.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

That is what I assumed he meant, just like when people saying "gay marriage" they mean "government recognition of said marriage".

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

And for the same reason this is sinful; it is lust and nothing more.You know, the whole sex for procreation angle.This is why birth control is opposed by the Vatican, because it means the sex is purely for sinful acts.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

That is what I assumed he meant, just like when people saying "gay marriage" they mean "government recognition of said marriage".

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

And for the same reason this is sinful; it is lust and nothing more.You know, the whole sex for procreation angle.This is why birth control is opposed by the Vatican, because it means the sex is purely for sinful acts.

Correct. Good job, you get a lollipop.

Although to add on, sex is not strictly for procreation.

Sex must posses four traits (as far as I know) in order to be moral:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

That is what I assumed he meant, just like when people saying "gay marriage" they mean "government recognition of said marriage".

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

And for the same reason this is sinful; it is lust and nothing more.You know, the whole sex for procreation angle.This is why birth control is opposed by the Vatican, because it means the sex is purely for sinful acts.

Correct. Good job, you get a lollipop.

Although to add on, sex is not strictly for procreation.

Sex must posses four traits (as far as I know) in order to be moral:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Good to know.Is that Catholic dogma?Or universal Christian view based on biblical teachings/passages?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

That is what I assumed he meant, just like when people saying "gay marriage" they mean "government recognition of said marriage".

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

And for the same reason this is sinful; it is lust and nothing more.You know, the whole sex for procreation angle.This is why birth control is opposed by the Vatican, because it means the sex is purely for sinful acts.

Correct. Good job, you get a lollipop.

Although to add on, sex is not strictly for procreation.

Sex must posses four traits (as far as I know) in order to be moral:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Good to know.Is that Catholic dogma?Or universal Christian view based on biblical teachings/passages?

Mmm, not really sure. Its kind of a universal knowledge. Although I'm pretty sure its Dogma which came together based off a Christian view on Bible teachings and passages.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

That is what I assumed he meant, just like when people saying "gay marriage" they mean "government recognition of said marriage".

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

And for the same reason this is sinful; it is lust and nothing more.You know, the whole sex for procreation angle.This is why birth control is opposed by the Vatican, because it means the sex is purely for sinful acts.

Correct. Good job, you get a lollipop.

Although to add on, sex is not strictly for procreation.

Sex must posses four traits (as far as I know) in order to be moral:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Good to know.Is that Catholic dogma?Or universal Christian view based on biblical teachings/passages?

I would say that the view can be established based on a literal balanced view of the bible. I was a non denominational Christian and very familiar with the bible and these types of dogma issues at one point.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

I wasn't aware you needed to be able to procreate to be able to love. Does this mean that infertile, or old, people can't have/give 'agape' love? Does this mean that people who, for whatever reason, do not (or possibly even cannot; sometimes there is no availability of religious priests of the 'proper' religion to approve the marriage) get married, cannot have/give 'agape' love?Also, I thought that love relating to sexuality (ie. the actual romantic love we are actually discussing) was 'eros' love, with 'agape' being something totally different?

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

I wasn't aware you needed to be able to procreate to be able to love. Does this mean that infertile, or old, people can't have/give 'agape' love? Does this mean that people who, for whatever reason, do not (or possibly even cannot; sometimes there is no availability of religious priests of the 'proper' religion to approve the marriage) get married, cannot have/give 'agape' love?Also, I thought that love relating to sexuality (ie. the actual romantic love we are actually discussing) was 'eros' love, with 'agape' being something totally different?

Nope, not what I said at all. I said you must be open to procreation. Infertile couples are naturally ordered towards procreation because of the relationship they pursue.

Also, it is possible to give agape love, but that is not enough. Since marriage and the sexual act is one of the greatest gifts from God, it must therefore be respected with the purest form of love, as God intended it to be.

Eros can still be given, but it cannot be given in its purest form unless all criteria for moral sex are fulfilled.

Eros - The desire to be with another.Agape - The desire for what is best for another person(s), most emphasized through self sacrifice for another.

Agape is a natural love among everyone and doesn't need a relationship. Eros is almost always in romantic relationships.

Marriage takes advantage of the emotional connection in order to achieve a powerful agape love.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

I wasn't aware you needed to be able to procreate to be able to love. Does this mean that infertile, or old, people can't have/give 'agape' love? Does this mean that people who, for whatever reason, do not (or possibly even cannot; sometimes there is no availability of religious priests of the 'proper' religion to approve the marriage) get married, cannot have/give 'agape' love?Also, I thought that love relating to sexuality (ie. the actual romantic love we are actually discussing) was 'eros' love, with 'agape' being something totally different?

Nope, not what I said at all. I said you must be open to procreation. Infertile couples are naturally ordered towards procreation because of the relationship they pursue.

Not relevant; they are physically incapable of procreation, so saying that they 'are open to procreation' in the same manner as fertile couples is at best misleading/misinformed. By way of being physically unable to procreate, regardless of their desires, they are very clearly not 'naturally ordered' towards procreation.

Also, it is possible to give agape love, but that is not enough. Since marriage and the sexual act is one of the greatest gifts from God, it must therefore be respected with the purest form of love, as God intended it to be.

This is only a meaningful statement to people who believe in God. This is not relevant to concepts of 'Love', which still means the same thing even if God is not presumed to exist. By definition 'Agape' is itself 'the purest form of (selfless) love'; anything else tacked on top is just that; tacked on top. And again, this doesn't show that love has anything to do with procreation, or even necessarily with marriage.

Eros can still be given, but it cannot be given in its purest form unless all criteria for moral sex are fulfilled.

I didn't say it was the purest form of love, just that it is the type of love that actually pertains to romantic relationships. Thus, the most applicable and meaningful type to be discussing when we're actually on the topic of romantic relationships.As well, what exactly defines 'moral sex'? Why do these things define 'moral sex', beyond the bounds of your specific religion?

Eros - The desire to be with another.Agape - The desire for what is best for another person(s), most emphasized through self sacrifice for another.

Agape is a natural love among everyone and doesn't need a relationship. Eros is almost always in romantic relationships.

Marriage takes advantage of the emotional connection in order to achieve a powerful agape love.

Actually, marriage is a social and legal contract that extends 'extra' rights and benefits to couples already in a strong romantic ('eros') relationship. It doesn't have anything more to do with pure, unselfish, non-romantic love than any other kind of romantic relationship does. It's not a religious, or 'religiously owned', concept, so applying your own religion's standards to this universal social/legal contract is misleading and not actually very accurate.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

I wasn't aware you needed to be able to procreate to be able to love. Does this mean that infertile, or old, people can't have/give 'agape' love? Does this mean that people who, for whatever reason, do not (or possibly even cannot; sometimes there is no availability of religious priests of the 'proper' religion to approve the marriage) get married, cannot have/give 'agape' love?Also, I thought that love relating to sexuality (ie. the actual romantic love we are actually discussing) was 'eros' love, with 'agape' being something totally different?

Nope, not what I said at all. I said you must be open to procreation. Infertile couples are naturally ordered towards procreation because of the relationship they pursue.

Not relevant; they are physically incapable of procreation, so saying that they 'are open to procreation' in the same manner as fertile couples is at best misleading/misinformed. By way of being physically unable to procreate, regardless of their desires, they are very clearly not 'naturally ordered' towards procreation.

To be naturally ordered towards procreation only requires the couple to be a man and a woman. Being infertile doesn't necessarily entail that there is a 0% chance of pregnancy also. Then to top it off there have been many infertile Biblical characters who had a child due to God sending one to them.

Also, it is possible to give agape love, but that is not enough. Since marriage and the sexual act is one of the greatest gifts from God, it must therefore be respected with the purest form of love, as God intended it to be.

This is only a meaningful statement to people who believe in God. This is not relevant to concepts of 'Love', which still means the same thing even if God is not presumed to exist. By definition 'Agape' is itself 'the purest form of (selfless) love'; anything else tacked on top is just that; tacked on top. And again, this doesn't show that love has anything to do with procreation, or even necessarily with marriage.

I disagree, the philosophy from a nonsecular standpoint is very sound. You say it yourself, the concept of love still exists even if God does not (let's go ahead an assume this.) I don't understand the relevancy of your whole "tacked on top" statement. You may clarify.

I would argue that being open to procreation fulfills love, because it shows that you are open to the fruits that come about out of love.

Marriage is simply a vow to stay together; a promise that you will be with them and love them all the day ff their lives.

Eros can still be given, but it cannot be given in its purest form unless all criteria for moral sex are fulfilled.

I didn't say it was the purest form of love, just that it is the type of love that actually pertains to romantic relationships. Thus, the most applicable and meaningful type to be discussing when we're actually on the topic of romantic relationships.As well, what exactly defines 'moral sex'? Why do these things define 'moral sex', beyond the bounds of your specific religion?

Eros - The desire to be with another.Agape - The desire for what is best for another person(s), most emphasized through self sacrifice for another.

Agape is a natural love among everyone and doesn't need a relationship. Eros is almost always in romantic relationships.

Marriage takes advantage of the emotional connection in order to achieve a powerful agape love.

Actually, marriage is a social and legal contract that extends 'extra' rights and benefits to couples already in a strong romantic ('eros') relationship. It doesn't have anything more to do with pure, unselfish, non-romantic love than any other kind of romantic relationship does. It's not a religious, or 'religiously owned', concept, so applying your own religion's standards to this universal social/legal contract is misleading and not actually very accurate.

That is a distorted image of marriage. By defining marriage in such away you break down the institution into nothing but strong emotions. I'd argue that if that's what people think marriage is then that would explain the decline in happily married couples, couples don't get a divorce, and the family unit.

However, when marriage is defined as purest form of agape gluing together a man and a woman who is in love, you would most definitely see the marriage institution flourish. That is why it is such a sound philosophy.

Marriage is not a contract. Marriage is a promise.

If these standards produce the best result, then even if they were secular standards they would still be standards all people should abide by.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Do we not all desire unselfish love, and the fruits of that unselfish love? I would say that it is only inherent among humanity to desire such things.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Do we not all desire unselfish love, and the fruits of that unselfish love? I would say that it is only inherent among humanity to desire such things.

Is non-procreative sex selfish to you?

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Do we not all desire unselfish love, and the fruits of that unselfish love? I would say that it is only inherent among humanity to desire such things.

Is non-procreative sex selfish to you?

Yes. It certainly may still hold a degree of unselfish love, but for the purest love it must be open to the fruits of that love. I would say that sexual intercourse is the most powerful emotional gift among humanity, and I think it is appropriate to not distort that gift from its purest form.

Like why do meth that's only 60% pure when you could do meth that 100% pure. Sure both are good but 100% pure is far better. #BreakingBad

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Do we not all desire unselfish love, and the fruits of that unselfish love? I would say that it is only inherent among humanity to desire such things.

Is non-procreative sex selfish to you?

Yes. It certainly may still hold a degree of unselfish love, but for the purest love it must be open to the fruits of that love. I would say that sexual intercourse is the most powerful emotional gift among humanity, and I think it is appropriate to not distort that gift from its purest form.

Like why do meth that's only 60% pure when you could do meth that 100% pure. Sure both are good but 100% pure is far better. #BreakingBad

Why is non-procreative (read: gay) sex not as pure as heterosexual sex? Also, have you ever had sex?

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.

At 2/2/2014 4:33:12 AM, MrVan wrote:Here's a question for people who believe that homosexuality is a sin; if it's a sin to love someone who's the same gender you are, is it a sin to love a brick?

Homosexuality itself isn't a sin, rather the sin is acting against the natural order of morality. That morality would be that sexuality should be strictly between man and woman. Also, it's not the sexuality itself that must be naturally ordered, it's acting upon one's sexuality that must be naturally ordered.

Expand upon yer natural order of morality.

Natural order of moral sex between humans goes as follows:

It must be open to procreation, posses a loving emotional connection between the two individuals, must be between man and woman (which technically goes back to one), and must be within the realm of a recognized (by God) marriage.

Ok, why?

In order to create the purest form of agape love.

Yeah, still gonna ask why that matters.

Why ask a question you already know the answer to? Do we not all desire unselfish love, and the fruits of that unselfish love? I would say that it is only inherent among humanity to desire such things.

Is non-procreative sex selfish to you?

Yes. It certainly may still hold a degree of unselfish love, but for the purest love it must be open to the fruits of that love. I would say that sexual intercourse is the most powerful emotional gift among humanity, and I think it is appropriate to not distort that gift from its purest form.

Like why do meth that's only 60% pure when you could do meth that 100% pure. Sure both are good but 100% pure is far better. #BreakingBad

Why is non-procreative (read: gay) sex not as pure as heterosexual sex? Also, have you ever had sex?

It isn't open to the fruits of that love. Otherwise meaning it isn't open to procreation.

No, and I don't see that it matter whether I have or have not.

This means that homosexuality itself is not sinful, rather acting upon homosexuality is sinful.

Yes. It certainly may still hold a degree of unselfish love, but for the purest love it must be open to the fruits of that love. I would say that sexual intercourse is the most powerful emotional gift among humanity, and I think it is appropriate to not distort that gift from its purest form.

Like why do meth that's only 60% pure when you could do meth that 100% pure. Sure both are good but 100% pure is far better. #BreakingBad

Why is non-procreative (read: gay) sex not as pure as heterosexual sex? Also, have you ever had sex?

It isn't open to the fruits of that love. Otherwise meaning it isn't open to procreation.

You don't love people you don't/can't procreate with?

No, and I don't see that it matter whether I have or have not.

It's fine if you don't see it.

: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.